Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:25 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

If Boeing launches it first, Airbus has no business case, as I wrote:



So Boeing can launch it first and Airbus has to do something else, but if Boeing launches some weird 7ab, then Airbus can do the same thing to the new 797 what it did to the 767: just bring a little more capable 8ab. 20-40 more pax and 250-500nm more range, 5-20t more payload.

That is why I think Boeing needs to do an 8ab to fill the market below the 787-9. Kill off the 787-8 and just have a lean step 737-10, two 8ab versions of the 797, 787-9. Then in a next step replace the 737 with something more focuses around the size of the MAX 9 and 10. Thats a really nice line up and forces airbus to go with a sub optimal super stretched A321.

Otherwise if Boeing goes 7ab, Airbus can just go 8ab and squeeze the 7ab Boeing hard from bottom and top because it will be to close to the A321 and the new Airbus. So be quick and take the business case in your own hand, force Airbus to react. Right now Boeing is forced and a 7ab will just not force Airbus to anything in the short term, an 8ab would.


Yes some weird 7AB that would have massive economies of scale as a lot of the structure could be reused under program accounting as a combined program and amortized over 10,000 frames.

Your 8AB will in no way be 150T or 165T - you are talking about something that is most likely about 200T MTOW and OEW weight of at least 100T.

Airbus would never do a clean sheet 8AB - it would be A330 based.

They looked at that. From Wiki

"In February 2000, the 250-seat A330-100 replacement for the A300/A310 could be launched by year end for 2003 deliveries. Shortened and keeping its fly-by-wire cockpit and systems, with a cleaner A300-600 wing with sealed control surfaces and winglets and at least two new engine types among the GE CF6-80, the PW4000 and the A340-500/600's Trent 500 aimed for 5% better SFC than the A300-600.[172] Its 44.8 m (147 ft) wing allowed a 173 t (381,000 lb) MTOW and 4,200 nmi (7,770 km) range. In May, the 210-260 seat design had evolved towards keeping the A330 60.3 m (198 ft) span wing and engines for a 195 t MTOW and 4,500 nmi (8,300 km) range. Interested customers included Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa and Hapag-Lloyd.[173]"


You live in a dream world.

If it was possible to build a 8 across frame with an OEW below 80 t and an MTOW of 164 t, it is possible to do it today., with better engines and longer range on the same tankage and going below the 1983 OEW.
Yes Airbus offered different A330-100/500 designs, but nobody was interested at that time, that was around 2000. If that still applies, there is no place for a MoM or NMA either.


Yes a dream world where that 1983 frame (A310) sat 243 seats in 8W - you and RJMAZ are talking about a plane that seats 30-40% more people at a lower MTOW. I suspect the passenger capacities you are looking at on the A300 are 9W.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:37 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I disagree. The global airline market 20 years ago was less than a quarter of the size of today. There were more aircraft models available and not all of them could get updated with new engines. The hub and spoke model of the 20th century also helped the very big and very small aircraft sell well. With point to point routes becoming the model moving forward, smaller longer ranged aircraft are the best solution. Unfortunately these models did not get a refresh so they went out of production.


What point to point routes? The majority of these routes operating the 321XLR or the 787 or the 330N end at a hub. If anything these aircraft are bolstering the hub/spoke model by facilitating growth at secondary hubs. True P2P bypassing hubs on both sides are incredibly rare. In reality, it's secondary hub to higher yielding spoke.

With that in mind, your 300 seat aircraft might be too much airplane. Airbus' stretched, rewinged and re-engined 320N and 321N would do fantastically. Airbus will be able to offer a three class (lie flat J, Y+, Y) with ~200 seats and say 4200NM real-world full pax range. Let's call that the 323. And a 200 all Y LCC Config (30" pitch) or ~170 seat three-class with say 4700NM. Let's call that the 322. Imagine what an airline like JetBlue could do with that from a secondary hub:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=BOS-LGW%2F ... 450&SU=kts

This is what Boeing has to fight off. Not the current 321XLR and 330NEO.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:53 pm

Well, if Boeing has shifted from looking at a new 150t airliner to a 125t airliner, I think they are headed in the right direction. Hopefully well find out with a launch this summer.
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:11 pm

I still don't get the market for the NMA. Is the target market to fly between larger cities exclusively? Is it to do long and thin?

The aviation market has changed a ton since the 757, 321 and 739 were first launched. The Southwest model is being replicated by discount carriers everywhere. Urbanization is driving the creation of more cities. But it's also driving the creation of larger cites. Mainline carriers began using frequency from major airports as a differentiator against discount carriers who operated fewer frequencies to more inconvenient (and lower cost) airports.

How many does Boeing want to sell? If they want to sell 10 000, there's no way it can be a 300 seater. Won't suit a high frequency model of service between major cities. And probably too many seats to service long, thin spokes the way the 321LR/XLR is doing. Make it a Code D aircraft and infrastructure limitations might limit sales. Make it Code C and the question becomes whether they'll be able to have an efficient wing or does price go up because they need a folding wingtip.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:29 pm

TObound wrote:
I still don't get the market for the NMA. Is the target market to fly between larger cities exclusively? Is it to do long and thin?

The aviation market has changed a ton since the 757, 321 and 739 were first launched. The Southwest model is being replicated by discount carriers everywhere. Urbanization is driving the creation of more cities. But it's also driving the creation of larger cites. Mainline carriers began using frequency from major airports as a differentiator against discount carriers who operated fewer frequencies to more inconvenient (and lower cost) airports.

How many does Boeing want to sell? If they want to sell 10 000, there's no way it can be a 300 seater. Won't suit a high frequency model of service between major cities. And probably too many seats to service long, thin spokes the way the 321LR/XLR is doing. Make it a Code D aircraft and infrastructure limitations might limit sales. Make it Code C and the question becomes whether they'll be able to have an efficient wing or does price go up because they need a folding wingtip.


Out of the 10,000 in a combined program I'm assuming about 2,000 NMA, 8,000 NSA

Even at $30 Billion combined program cost that is only $3 M per frame. Versus say $20 Billion for an 8w NMA only for 2,000 sales at $10 million per frame.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5468
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:04 am

I don't get the notion that all these A330/767/757 need to somehow get replaced by similar capacity aircraft. As a present example, HA is quickly replacing all its A330 to west coast flying with A321NEO. A321NEO allows them to right size certain markets while add frequency on the other markets. Only gate constrained airport like LAX gets A330 on a high volume trunk route like LAX-HNL. Historically speaking, transcon flying that was once dominated by widebodies are now dominated by single aisle aircraft. The only country doing large amount of widebody domestic service is China due to slot/air space constraints and that will also move further toward larger capacity aircraft and away from A330 service. The reason is pretty simple, if you can get comparable CASM with a smaller aircraft that has sufficient range, you are always going for the smaller aircraft. You get higher RASM with fewer seats. Over in TATL market, A321XLR will replace not only 757 and 767, but also A330 and 787 over time. There is a reason AA ordered this many XLR to be placed in PHL. You think that won't replace their A330 or 787-800 (with just 20 J seats) on some of these routes? Just imagine when the range of A321XLR getting another 500 to 1000 miles bump over time. That would cover all the TATL flying needs out of JFK. You can then be single type of operator with all domestic/international flights covered. That's huge in cost cutting.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:32 am

tphuang wrote:
As a present example, HA is quickly replacing all its A330 to west coast flying with A321NEO. A321NEO allows them to right size certain markets while add frequency on the other markets.

This only works on the routes that are within the range of the A321. After that point the airlines have to step right up to a large 7500+nm range widebody.

The 797 will allow airlines right size and add frequency on routes 1000nm beyond the A321. A premium carrier with lower density should be able to get 5500nm out of the 797. The 797 will be able to do central Asia to West Europe , the A321XLR would struggle. The 797 could do east asia to the US west coast. Lots of secondary cities can bypass a hub.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 11163
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:52 pm

Just a reminder to keep your posts on topic and relevant without derailing the topic. Unfortunately over 2 dozen posts have had to be removed as reference posts due to some users taking the discussion off topic so keep on topic
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19293
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:53 pm

It appears that Boeing has "secretly" been steering customers who've over-ordered MAX (especially lessors) towards its replacement - FSA.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/28/conve ... to-the-fsa
As Boeing works its way through the 737 MAX crisis, all consideration whether to launch the New Midmarket Aircraft (NMA) is on hold.

But the Boeing sales force has been testing the market with a single-aisle concept, the Future Small Airplane (FSA) to replace the MAX.

This highly confidential effort has been underway for months. Some lessors have been approached to swap some MAX orders for the FSA—there was a supply-demand imbalance for lessor-ordered MAXes even before the grounding—and airlines across the globe have been approached to gauge interest.


It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:29 pm

That's a very interesting development. So FSA may be further along than we thought and may have covert consent from the BOD.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:50 pm

scbriml wrote:
It appears that Boeing has "secretly" been steering customers who've over-ordered MAX (especially lessors) towards its replacement - FSA.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/28/conve ... to-the-fsa
As Boeing works its way through the 737 MAX crisis, all consideration whether to launch the New Midmarket Aircraft (NMA) is on hold.

But the Boeing sales force has been testing the market with a single-aisle concept, the Future Small Airplane (FSA) to replace the MAX.

This highly confidential effort has been underway for months. Some lessors have been approached to swap some MAX orders for the FSA—there was a supply-demand imbalance for lessor-ordered MAXes even before the grounding—and airlines across the globe have been approached to gauge interest.


It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.


No - it wouldn't surprise me as from a strategic point of view I think it would be the wrong thing to do and continue Boeings miscues ever since they decided to do MAX over NSA.

They should never have done the MAX - they should never have rewinged the 777 (instead they should have stretched or ovalized the 787 to replace it - the 787-11/12 with a bigger wing/gear) and they should have moved ahead with the NMA a lot sooner.

You will find posts by me from years ago stating as much which are turning out to be somewhat prescient (just like others have done).

They need to be innovative and do things other people can't or in the future they risk competing on price alone.

The C919 doesn't look like that big of threat now - but by the time FSA could be on the market I fully expect it to be (or starting to be). The Chinese will figure out how to industrialize it and with all there Silk Road Partnerships - Airlines outside the states will be flying a lot of them.

They need to do something that will allow them to earn a premium on their products.

A 6W tube and wings won't give you any big advantage over A320 or C919 and unless you make it Super Big with a wide Aisle so you can stretch it into the NMA space you are forced in the future to commit capital to that area as well - but then you might as well make it an 7W Oval and use it for NSA.

However if they do a 6W FSA - I would make it as tight as possible (737 tight) to keep it as light as possible so it doesn't get overtaken by the A220.
Last edited by morrisond on Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:55 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
This only works on the routes that are within the range of the A321.


The vast, vast majority of routes.

RJMAZ wrote:
After that point the airlines have to step right up to a large 7500+nm range widebody.


> 10 hrs on a narrowbody is probably pushing it anyway. how many city pairs are really viable at that point?

RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 will be able to do central Asia to West Europe , the A321XLR would struggle.


Why do you say that? This does not look like a huge challenge for the XLR to me:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ALA-BER%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 could do east asia to the US west coast. Lots of secondary cities can bypass a hub.


Even if there was a market, with 4700nm range, the XLR could theoretically do routes like this, if not at launch, then with a handful of PIPs:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PDX-HND%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

But again, what's the point? This Pacific isn't the Atlantic with lots of thin city pairs that have 200 PDEW and are < 4000nm apart. Like which city pairs and operators do you imagine running 200 seat single aisle planes for > 10 hrs across the Pacific? This looks like a nice hypothetical capability that has no real world demand.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:11 pm

There is another factor - crew rest.

(Considering pilots only as they are the sky gods after all :rolleyes: - or to make my life simpler - I'll assume same requirements mirror for cabin crew)
Currently a pilot has a max allowable duty of between 11 and 13 hrs for 1/2 flights/day (EASA) depending on time of day. Subtract 90 mins from that for pre-flights and another 30 mins for contingency and you are at 9-11 hrs flight time.

If an airline has to stick on reserve flight and cabin crew, then the nature of the equation automatically shifts away from a narrowbody as there is a step change in crew expense, space and lift capacity for these additional crewmembers will also be required.

Thus, there probably isn't any advantage to an A321XLR being able to fly >10 hrs. It doesn't fit with how they would mostly be used.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:29 pm

TObound wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
This only works on the routes that are within the range of the A321.


The vast, vast majority of routes.

RJMAZ wrote:
After that point the airlines have to step right up to a large 7500+nm range widebody.


> 10 hrs on a narrowbody is probably pushing it anyway. how many city pairs are really viable at that point?

RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 will be able to do central Asia to West Europe , the A321XLR would struggle.


Why do you say that? This does not look like a huge challenge for the XLR to me:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ALA-BER%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 could do east asia to the US west coast. Lots of secondary cities can bypass a hub.


Even if there was a market, with 4700nm range, the XLR could theoretically do routes like this, if not at launch, then with a handful of PIPs:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PDX-HND%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

But again, what's the point? This Pacific isn't the Atlantic with lots of thin city pairs that have 200 PDEW and are < 4000nm apart. Like which city pairs and operators do you imagine running 200 seat single aisle planes for > 10 hrs across the Pacific? This looks like a nice hypothetical capability that has no real world demand.


I think the likes of Easyjet, Sprint, etc, would not mind the option to go from Manchester to Miami or Atlanta to Rio. Routes that for a long time were no option for the LCC's and probably the main reason why the legacy carriers are still able to stay a float.
From the flights I have been on the last couple of years in Europe Easyjet charges on average €70 for a return of 1100nm each way. They would eat everybody's lunch if they would charge €280 for a return of 4000nm each way.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:43 pm

edit to #463 before edit was taken away from me:

Stepping from 200 passengers on A321 on a 9 hr flight to 210 passengers on a 10 hr flight on a NMA isn't gonna cut it unless those passengers are paying on average ~$40 more per ticket* - and that is the airline making no more profit for having their machinery in the air for an extra hour. I haven't included maintenance for that extra flight hour, or depreciation.

*based on A321 crew costs around €11.4/minute and Jet-A @ €0.50/litre with 2T per hour burn rate.


In saying that - there is one thing that might save the NMA in this regard. Cruise speed. A320 currently cruises at around M0.8 An NMA would be optimised to go at M0.9 -- so that 10 hr flight on an A321 would only take 8 hrs 55 mins on an NMA.

Which means the NMA would have that step change in expenses at what would be an 11hr flight time for A321. Beyond which point it might be better for airlines to go 8AB widebody like A330 or 787.

Not much of a market niche to put $10+ billion into is it?
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:48 pm

JonesNL wrote:

I think the likes of Easyjet, Sprint, etc, would not mind the option to go from Manchester to Miami or Atlanta to Rio. Routes that for a long time were no option for the LCC's and probably the main reason why the legacy carriers are still able to stay a float.
From the flights I have been on the last couple of years in Europe Easyjet charges on average €70 for a return of 1100nm each way. They would eat everybody's lunch if they would charge €280 for a return of 4000nm each way.


Just to be clear, MAN-MIA and ATL-RIO will both be doable with the 321XLR, with its 4700NM range at launch:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=MIA-MAN%2C ... =wls&DU=nm

There's a reason B6 is buying over a dozen XLRs. I would not be surprise if this kind of network emerges from MCO and FLL:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=MCO-DUB%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

So again, what's the market for this twin aisle 300 seater with 5000nm that some how squeezes in successfully between a 788/339 and a 321XLR (or its likely successor)?
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:07 pm

@Amiga500

Fantastic points. This is why I can only see this working if they engineer a better 321XLR. Or in other words a thoroughly modern 757. 6ab, 18in wide seats, 19in middle seat. Slightly larger aisle. Two models. The small one at a minimum of 200 3-class (J/Y+/Y). And the large one at 240 3-class. Give them wings and engines optimized for flights longer than 2 hrs and enough range and speed for the smaller version to cover lots of TATL pairs in 9 hrs and for the larger version to very comfortably do any TCON pair (about 2500NM ESAD). That would let them make a killing and Airbus would not be able to fully compete with such an aircraft with even stretched and rewinged 321s. They'd have to resort to discounting and ceding some market share to Boeing.
 
Baldr
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:10 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:20 pm

TObound wrote:
@Amiga500

That would let them make a killing and Airbus would not be able to fully compete with such an aircraft with even stretched and rewinged 321s. They'd have to resort to discounting and ceding some market share to Boeing.


Make a "killing"?

What a lot of nonsense. This notional aircraft of yours won't enter into service for another 7-8 years. Meanwhile, the A321-LR/-LRX will have its market niche to itself and Airbus will have all the time in the world to carefully think through their strategy and business plan for their next generation single aisle family.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1975
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:56 pm

scbriml wrote:
It appears that Boeing has "secretly" been steering customers who've over-ordered MAX (especially lessors) towards its replacement - FSA.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/28/conve ... to-the-fsa
As Boeing works its way through the 737 MAX crisis, all consideration whether to launch the New Midmarket Aircraft (NMA) is on hold.

But the Boeing sales force has been testing the market with a single-aisle concept, the Future Small Airplane (FSA) to replace the MAX.

This highly confidential effort has been underway for months. Some lessors have been approached to swap some MAX orders for the FSA—there was a supply-demand imbalance for lessor-ordered MAXes even before the grounding—and airlines across the globe have been approached to gauge interest.


It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.


This reminds me of Boeing silently talking to customers in 2002 to customers about a 767 replacement using technology from Sonic cruiser. I remember being very disappointed at that time, but it turned out Boeing understood the marked very well at that time and what ended up as the 787 was a very successful plane. If Boeing does the same now and development is at advanced stages, this could be good news in the long run. Imagine if the FSA is to the 737 that the 787 was to the 767. :-D
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:04 pm

Baldr wrote:
TObound wrote:
@Amiga500

That would let them make a killing and Airbus would not be able to fully compete with such an aircraft with even stretched and rewinged 321s. They'd have to resort to discounting and ceding some market share to Boeing.


Make a "killing"?

What a lot of nonsense. This notional aircraft of yours won't enter into service for another 7-8 years. Meanwhile, the A321-LR/-LRX will have its market niche to itself and Airbus will have all the time in the world to carefully think through their strategy and business plan for their next generation single aisle family.


I mean Boeing isn't really competing in this space now. And if they position themselves just out of a reach of a 321 stretch, it'll tough for Airbus to compete with anything but discounting and ceding some market share.
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:07 pm

Oykie wrote:
scbriml wrote:
It appears that Boeing has "secretly" been steering customers who've over-ordered MAX (especially lessors) towards its replacement - FSA.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/28/conve ... to-the-fsa
As Boeing works its way through the 737 MAX crisis, all consideration whether to launch the New Midmarket Aircraft (NMA) is on hold.

But the Boeing sales force has been testing the market with a single-aisle concept, the Future Small Airplane (FSA) to replace the MAX.

This highly confidential effort has been underway for months. Some lessors have been approached to swap some MAX orders for the FSA—there was a supply-demand imbalance for lessor-ordered MAXes even before the grounding—and airlines across the globe have been approached to gauge interest.


It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.


This reminds me of Boeing silently talking to customers in 2002 to customers about a 767 replacement using technology from Sonic cruiser. I remember being very disappointed at that time, but it turned out Boeing understood the marked very well at that time and what ended up as the 787 was a very successful plane. If Boeing does the same now and development is at advanced stages, this could be good news in the long run. Imagine if the FSA is to the 737 that the 787 was to the 767. :-D


Arguably they had better leadership back then and really listened to their customers and their engineers.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:25 pm

scbriml wrote:
It appears that Boeing has "secretly" been steering customers who've over-ordered MAX (especially lessors) towards its replacement - FSA.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/28/conve ... to-the-fsa
As Boeing works its way through the 737 MAX crisis, all consideration whether to launch the New Midmarket Aircraft (NMA) is on hold.

But the Boeing sales force has been testing the market with a single-aisle concept, the Future Small Airplane (FSA) to replace the MAX.

This highly confidential effort has been underway for months. Some lessors have been approached to swap some MAX orders for the FSA—there was a supply-demand imbalance for lessor-ordered MAXes even before the grounding—and airlines across the globe have been approached to gauge interest.


It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.


This is very interesting, and like you said not surprising.

I fully believe Boeing will go ahead with the FSA, or a combination project of FSA/NMA (like the 757/767 project 40 years ago). I don't see there's any chance of an NMA on it's own.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1975
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:40 pm

TObound wrote:
Oykie wrote:
scbriml wrote:
It appears that Boeing has "secretly" been steering customers who've over-ordered MAX (especially lessors) towards its replacement - FSA.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/28/conve ... to-the-fsa


It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.


This reminds me of Boeing silently talking to customers in 2002 to customers about a 767 replacement using technology from Sonic cruiser. I remember being very disappointed at that time, but it turned out Boeing understood the marked very well at that time and what ended up as the 787 was a very successful plane. If Boeing does the same now and development is at advanced stages, this could be good news in the long run. Imagine if the FSA is to the 737 that the 787 was to the 767. :-D


Arguably they had better leadership back then and really listened to their customers and their engineers.


In all fairness to Boeing, they wanted to do the NSA back in 2011, but American really pushed forward with the 737MAX. So they actually did listen to AA in 2011. It was a surprise announcement for everyone that believed the NSA was just around the corner.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:01 pm

TObound wrote:
Oykie wrote:
scbriml wrote:
It appears that Boeing has "secretly" been steering customers who've over-ordered MAX (especially lessors) towards its replacement - FSA.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/28/conve ... to-the-fsa


It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.


This reminds me of Boeing silently talking to customers in 2002 to customers about a 767 replacement using technology from Sonic cruiser. I remember being very disappointed at that time, but it turned out Boeing understood the marked very well at that time and what ended up as the 787 was a very successful plane. If Boeing does the same now and development is at advanced stages, this could be good news in the long run. Imagine if the FSA is to the 737 that the 787 was to the 767. :-D


Arguably they had better leadership back then and really listened to their customers and their engineers.


The same management then brought us the 7-Late-7 rollout of the mockup claiming it would fly in like 60 days, not months and months. They were really listening to their own people, much less the customers.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:09 pm

scbriml wrote:

It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.


Yep! But no source is cited.

This is a warmed article and taken from Jon Ostrower. I would not comment here until Boeing really reveals the FSA concept.

The rest is only provocation ...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
Baldr
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:10 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:35 pm

TObound wrote:
Baldr wrote:
TObound wrote:
@Amiga500

That would let them make a killing and Airbus would not be able to fully compete with such an aircraft with even stretched and rewinged 321s. They'd have to resort to discounting and ceding some market share to Boeing.


Make a "killing"?

What a lot of nonsense. This notional aircraft of yours won't enter into service for another 7-8 years. Meanwhile, the A321-LR/-LRX will have its market niche to itself and Airbus will have all the time in the world to carefully think through their strategy and business plan for their next generation single aisle family.


I mean Boeing isn't really competing in this space now. And if they position themselves just out of a reach of a 321 stretch, it'll tough for Airbus to compete with anything but discounting and ceding some market share.


The fact of the matter is that the A321neo, A320LR and A320LRX are ruining Boeing's plans for market domination of the (Boeing-defined) twin-aisle, middle-of-the-market where their notional NMA now appears to have been stopped dead in its tracks by an urgently needed all new NSA instead. In fact, the A321neo, A320LR and A320LRX are set to massively dominate the large single aisle market for much of the next decade.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19293
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:07 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.


Yep! But no source is cited.

This is a warmed article and taken from Jon Ostrower. I would not comment here until Boeing really reveals the FSA concept.

The rest is only provocation ...


Not “taken from Ostrower” at all.

But the Boeing sales force has been testing the market with a single-aisle concept, the Future Small Airplane (FSA) to replace the MAX.


Not sure what source you’re expecting, but you’re still the only person who thinks NSA is a twin-aisle.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:15 pm

scbriml wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.


Yep! But no source is cited.

This is a warmed article and taken from Jon Ostrower. I would not comment here until Boeing really reveals the FSA concept.

The rest is only provocation ...


Not “taken from Ostrower” at all.

But the Boeing sales force has been testing the market with a single-aisle concept, the Future Small Airplane (FSA) to replace the MAX.


Not sure what source you’re expecting, but you’re still the only person who thinks NSA is a twin-aisle.


Well, I'll be the only one to believe it. As I said, I'm waiting for Boeing to reveal the FSA for me to comment...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
DDR
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:20 pm

scbriml wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.


So, you work for Boeing and know this?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19293
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:39 pm

DDR wrote:
So, you work for Boeing and know this?


I don’t need to work for Boeing, because I can read. :wink2:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:07 pm

Threading the needle here must be challenging for Boeing. What city pairs are there where you need more seats than a 321XLR but don't think abusing a widebody would be worthwhile? There's also the value of frequency. Running two 321XLR rotations than say a 333/339/789 rotation may actually prove to be higher yielding. This is where I struggle to see the value of a 300 seat twin-aisle NMA.
 
Sjtstudios
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:31 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:59 am

Is anyone else actually questioning wether the FSA would be poorly timed for a pre-2030 launch date? If NMA is scraped, Boeing is either forced into FSA immediately or has to cut engineering headcount for the next 5-10 years and wait. Could this be premature from a product design and market feasibility standpoint?

With the Max having nearly 5,000 units in backlog and honestly more demand in the outlook, Boeing would basically be scrapping the program after 10 years. If Airlines do not want to retrain pilots in the next 10 years, due to young ages of recently manufactured 737NG and A320ceo, Boeing basically concedes the rest of this narrow body replacement cycle to Airbus. When would the next one occur?

And what would a ~2027 EIS design achieve from an optimization standpoint? Composites? Any significant engine breakthrough from LEAP? I feel like Boeing wouldn’t achieve any significant market advantage in price or operational costs. Lastly, with the duopoly, what market advantage could Boeing hope to gain over Airbus from a supply standpoint.

It truly seems to me like the NMA serves a business model development purpose. Production system design, supply chain optimization, economies of scale, could it all be something that needs more maturity before a FSA? Obviously the product needs to sell, but maybe the NMA’s spot in the MoM is necessary to support the FSA’s spot in Boeing’s product range. Perhaps sliding a FSA down into a design envelope that efficiently covers 120-200 instead of the 180-240 like the A320-A321 range.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:04 am

Sjtstudios wrote:
Is anyone else actually questioning wether the FSA would be poorly timed for a pre-2030 launch date? If NMA is scraped, Boeing is either forced into FSA immediately or has to cut engineering headcount for the next 5-10 years and wait. Could this be premature from a product design and market feasibility standpoint?

With the Max having nearly 5,000 units in backlog and honestly more demand in the outlook, Boeing would basically be scrapping the program after 10 years. If Airlines do not want to retrain pilots in the next 10 years, due to young ages of recently manufactured 737NG and A320ceo, Boeing basically concedes the rest of this narrow body replacement cycle to Airbus. When would the next one occur?

And what would a ~2027 EIS design achieve from an optimization standpoint? Composites? Any significant engine breakthrough from LEAP? I feel like Boeing wouldn’t achieve any significant market advantage in price or operational costs. Lastly, with the duopoly, what market advantage could Boeing hope to gain over Airbus from a supply standpoint.

It truly seems to me like the NMA serves a business model development purpose. Production system design, supply chain optimization, economies of scale, could it all be something that needs more maturity before a FSA? Obviously the product needs to sell, but maybe the NMA’s spot in the MoM is necessary to support the FSA’s spot in Boeing’s product range. Perhaps sliding a FSA down into a design envelope that efficiently covers 120-200 instead of the 180-240 like the A320-A321 range.


If it's 120-200 (ok let's call it 180) the most efficient cross section would probably be 5W. No one has said Future single aisle means 6W. This would cover A221-738/A320 in size.

This would make sense with Boeing Brazil focusing on this leaving Big Boeing to focus on 7W NMA which eventually morfs into 7W NSA after 2030 when engines are available and the Capacity is needed at slot constrained airports.

Smallest NSA would start at 200 Y seats ranging up to largest NMA at 300 Y seats.
 
klkla
Posts: 851
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:51 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:29 am

TObound wrote:
[Just to be clear … ATL-RIO will ... be doable with the 321XLR, with its 4700NM range at launch


While it will be possible for the aircraft to fly that distance it will not be able to do so with a passenger count that will be able to compete with modern widebodies on a CASM basis.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:39 am

morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Yes some weird 7AB that would have massive economies of scale as a lot of the structure could be reused under program accounting as a combined program and amortized over 10,000 frames.

Your 8AB will in no way be 150T or 165T - you are talking about something that is most likely about 200T MTOW and OEW weight of at least 100T.

Airbus would never do a clean sheet 8AB - it would be A330 based.

They looked at that. From Wiki

"In February 2000, the 250-seat A330-100 replacement for the A300/A310 could be launched by year end for 2003 deliveries. Shortened and keeping its fly-by-wire cockpit and systems, with a cleaner A300-600 wing with sealed control surfaces and winglets and at least two new engine types among the GE CF6-80, the PW4000 and the A340-500/600's Trent 500 aimed for 5% better SFC than the A300-600.[172] Its 44.8 m (147 ft) wing allowed a 173 t (381,000 lb) MTOW and 4,200 nmi (7,770 km) range. In May, the 210-260 seat design had evolved towards keeping the A330 60.3 m (198 ft) span wing and engines for a 195 t MTOW and 4,500 nmi (8,300 km) range. Interested customers included Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa and Hapag-Lloyd.[173]"


You live in a dream world.

If it was possible to build a 8 across frame with an OEW below 80 t and an MTOW of 164 t, it is possible to do it today., with better engines and longer range on the same tankage and going below the 1983 OEW.
Yes Airbus offered different A330-100/500 designs, but nobody was interested at that time, that was around 2000. If that still applies, there is no place for a MoM or NMA either.


Yes a dream world where that 1983 frame (A310) sat 243 seats in 8W - you and RJMAZ are talking about a plane that seats 30-40% more people at a lower MTOW. I suspect the passenger capacities you are looking at on the A300 are 9W.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300


When did I talk about 30-40% more seating and a lower MTOW? I talk about a frame the size of a A310 and max 10% bigger.
Perhaps you are able to remember that the discussion is about a small wide body, not an VLA.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:08 am

I still wonder why people think 7W is in any way a good idea. In Economy class for the current trend of lowest fares possible you need a high seat vs aisle rate. That is why the 777 is in 3-4-3 and not 3-3-3 and so on. 7W has the worst ratio possible and I can not see which airlines would invest into a frame like this especially if it is so "tight" that you can not go 2-4-2 even in Asia. Building an aircraft like this means limiting yourself to a really small market (USA, and maybe domestic Australia). I can see no other region to buy an aircraft like this. Toss the odd African and central Asian carrier into this and that is it.

A market like China or India needs a bigger jump in capacity from a 6W up. In Europe you do not need a 7W for any routes (not to Asia, Africa, South America and to NA it will be done by the US carriers). Intra European is all about frequency not mass except some tourist flights in summer to the Mediterranean.

If you want to sell more than 500 Units you need the Asian market, so an aircraft you can cramp and even a bit freight capability on top.

Also the LCC market will grow even more in the next few years and there it is important to have more seats and less aisle. So 7W double aisle will never be sold to any LCC and this are the carriers buying the most aircraft.
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:35 pm

klkla wrote:
TObound wrote:
[Just to be clear … ATL-RIO will ... be doable with the 321XLR, with its 4700NM range at launch


While it will be possible for the aircraft to fly that distance it will not be able to do so with a passenger count that will be able to compete with modern widebodies on a CASM basis.


This is true for any route. The entire point of the 321 LR/XLR is to make up for the slightly higher CASM by cutting out a connection and going direct. Other than increasing frequencies, there's not many routes where the 321 LR/XLR will compete with a widebody.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 4700NM is the range with 209 pax.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:57 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
I still wonder why people think 7W is in any way a good idea. In Economy class for the current trend of lowest fares possible you need a high seat vs aisle rate. That is why the 777 is in 3-4-3 and not 3-3-3 and so on. 7W has the worst ratio possible and I can not see which airlines would invest into a frame like this especially if it is so "tight" that you can not go 2-4-2 even in Asia. Building an aircraft like this means limiting yourself to a really small market (USA, and maybe domestic Australia). I can see no other region to buy an aircraft like this. Toss the odd African and central Asian carrier into this and that is it.

A market like China or India needs a bigger jump in capacity from a 6W up. In Europe you do not need a 7W for any routes (not to Asia, Africa, South America and to NA it will be done by the US carriers). Intra European is all about frequency not mass except some tourist flights in summer to the Mediterranean.

If you want to sell more than 500 Units you need the Asian market, so an aircraft you can cramp and even a bit freight capability on top.

Also the LCC market will grow even more in the next few years and there it is important to have more seats and less aisle. So 7W double aisle will never be sold to any LCC and this are the carriers buying the most aircraft.


If what you state is true about the Asian market there is already a plane for that, the A330 Regional.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:05 pm

scbriml wrote:
DDR wrote:
So, you work for Boeing and know this?


I don’t need to work for Boeing, because I can read. :wink2:


I would not change my position one iota concerning the FSA
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:07 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

You live in a dream world.

If it was possible to build a 8 across frame with an OEW below 80 t and an MTOW of 164 t, it is possible to do it today., with better engines and longer range on the same tankage and going below the 1983 OEW.
Yes Airbus offered different A330-100/500 designs, but nobody was interested at that time, that was around 2000. If that still applies, there is no place for a MoM or NMA either.


Yes a dream world where that 1983 frame (A310) sat 243 seats in 8W - you and RJMAZ are talking about a plane that seats 30-40% more people at a lower MTOW. I suspect the passenger capacities you are looking at on the A300 are 9W.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300


When did I talk about 30-40% more seating and a lower MTOW? I talk about a frame the size of a A310 and max 10% bigger.
Perhaps you are able to remember that the discussion is about a small wide body, not an VLA.


Sorry - I lumped you in with RJMAZ who believes the bigger NMA is 321 + 50% more seats - meaning over 300 easily.

A310 is only 243 as per Airbus single class.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:09 pm

RJMAZ:- I did a few numbers on that 8w idea you had.

With a 230m^2 wing with 48m span and other pieces stolen from the 767 for ease of calculation (tail sizes/sweeps) would come out with a an empty weight of about 75t.
It would need about 150t MTOW and would be able to do ~5900nm with a 30min hold with 250pax using about 45t of fuel.

on a 4905nm route (nil wind) with 300pax (ZFW weight of ~108.5t) it used ~37.5t of fuel so a TOW of ~147t, it would likely be 5200nm range in that case.

The realistic range would be ~200nm lower if you wanted something more than 30mins holding.

I like the idea of this plane but I don't really see the market being there for it. The problem that the MOM/NMA faces is that as time goes on the sweet spot of an aircraft where it operates "efficiently" doesn't move upwards as the Aero/engines improves, it expands a little bit downward and the the top it moves outward a lot. the gaps get squeezed.

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:17 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
I still wonder why people think 7W is in any way a good idea. In Economy class for the current trend of lowest fares possible you need a high seat vs aisle rate. That is why the 777 is in 3-4-3 and not 3-3-3 and so on. 7W has the worst ratio possible and I can not see which airlines would invest into a frame like this especially if it is so "tight" that you can not go 2-4-2 even in Asia. Building an aircraft like this means limiting yourself to a really small market (USA, and maybe domestic Australia). I can see no other region to buy an aircraft like this. Toss the odd African and central Asian carrier into this and that is it.

A market like China or India needs a bigger jump in capacity from a 6W up. In Europe you do not need a 7W for any routes (not to Asia, Africa, South America and to NA it will be done by the US carriers). Intra European is all about frequency not mass except some tourist flights in summer to the Mediterranean.

If you want to sell more than 500 Units you need the Asian market, so an aircraft you can cramp and even a bit freight capability on top.

Also the LCC market will grow even more in the next few years and there it is important to have more seats and less aisle. So 7W double aisle will never be sold to any LCC and this are the carriers buying the most aircraft.


Because you keep thinking it's Circular - Ovalish is not that much of a penalty and you can't take SA 6W much past A321 in length for boarding/deplaning and moving around the cabin issues.

With Carbon you may be able to get this for "free" meaning not much of a weight penalty as the Skin thickness requirements to deal with things like Ramp strikes are more than is needed for structural reasons - that excess margin can be put to good use.

Oh - and none of the rumors in the media are NMA as 8W it's always been 7W.

For really low cost/efficiency because of the strength of Carbon and the ability to build really long tubes efficiently from a weight standpoint - 5W might actually be the right answer.

A 5W A225/A227 would give any new 6W fits.

5W for up to 180 ish seats (or 200 Seats Y- Sardine LCC class) and LCC, 7W NSA for Mainline and possibly an NSA - XL that could seat up to say 300 seats in Y that would have fantastic CASM and be great for LCC's.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9758
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:23 pm

Same technology, manufacturing and same number of rows, the 6W will be more effiicent.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:07 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I still wonder why people think 7W is in any way a good idea. In Economy class for the current trend of lowest fares possible you need a high seat vs aisle rate. That is why the 777 is in 3-4-3 and not 3-3-3 and so on. 7W has the worst ratio possible and I can not see which airlines would invest into a frame like this especially if it is so "tight" that you can not go 2-4-2 even in Asia. Building an aircraft like this means limiting yourself to a really small market (USA, and maybe domestic Australia). I can see no other region to buy an aircraft like this. Toss the odd African and central Asian carrier into this and that is it.

A market like China or India needs a bigger jump in capacity from a 6W up. In Europe you do not need a 7W for any routes (not to Asia, Africa, South America and to NA it will be done by the US carriers). Intra European is all about frequency not mass except some tourist flights in summer to the Mediterranean.

If you want to sell more than 500 Units you need the Asian market, so an aircraft you can cramp and even a bit freight capability on top.

Also the LCC market will grow even more in the next few years and there it is important to have more seats and less aisle. So 7W double aisle will never be sold to any LCC and this are the carriers buying the most aircraft.


Because you keep thinking it's Circular - Ovalish is not that much of a penalty

Well lets go back a step before we even talk about the 'ovalness'. The difference between 6W and 7W even without the oval is huge. Look at the difference between the 753 and 762. aside from teh higher weights of the 762 because it has to go further the fuselage on the 762 weighs 14.5t vs 10.7t on the 753.

So a wide fuselage is fundamentally heavier per pax and then you want to make it a suboptimal shape for saving some skin friction...

The dead weight fuselage has to be carried by wings which have to be bigger (heavier) when that dead weight goes up and will create more drag and need more thrust to get up in the air. Weight in the fuselage adds surface to your wings.

morrisond wrote:

and you can't take SA 6W much past A321 in length for boarding/deplaning

the 752 is 3m longer than the A321, the 752 (and 753) can board from the L2 doors.
morrisond wrote:
and moving around the cabin issues.

in the 7W configuration there is exactly 1 row per seat that gets the benefit of the second aisle for 'moving around' no matter how hard you want to make 2 aisles work the persons in rows A,B,and C are using the first aisle and those in E,F and G are using the second.
morrisond wrote:
With Carbon you may be able to get this for "free" meaning not much of a weight penalty as the Skin thickness requirements to deal with things like Ramp strikes are more than is needed for structural reasons - that excess margin can be put to good use.

This is actually more of an argument for not using CFRP for the fuselage in the first place(see: C-Series). Its so un-optimal from a material selection perspective that we can do all this bad stuff before it starts to hurt.

morrisond wrote:

Oh - and none of the rumors in the media are NMA as 8W it's always been 7W.

For really low cost/efficiency because of the strength of Carbon and the ability to build really long tubes efficiently from a weight standpoint - 5W might actually be the right answer.

A 5W A225/A227 would give any new 6W fits.

5W for up to 180 ish seats (or 200 Seats Y- Sardine LCC class) and LCC

The wierd part being that its LCCs that care about deplaning times because their model works more on asset utilisation with lower revenue whereas the legacies drive more towards higher revenues with lower utilisation with higher revenue from banked departures and coordination making better trip options.
morrisond wrote:

, 7W NSA for Mainline and possibly an NSA - XL that could seat up to say 300 seats in Y that would have fantastic CASM and be great for LCC's.


Fred
Image
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:33 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I still wonder why people think 7W is in any way a good idea. In Economy class for the current trend of lowest fares possible you need a high seat vs aisle rate. That is why the 777 is in 3-4-3 and not 3-3-3 and so on. 7W has the worst ratio possible and I can not see which airlines would invest into a frame like this especially if it is so "tight" that you can not go 2-4-2 even in Asia. Building an aircraft like this means limiting yourself to a really small market (USA, and maybe domestic Australia). I can see no other region to buy an aircraft like this. Toss the odd African and central Asian carrier into this and that is it.

A market like China or India needs a bigger jump in capacity from a 6W up. In Europe you do not need a 7W for any routes (not to Asia, Africa, South America and to NA it will be done by the US carriers). Intra European is all about frequency not mass except some tourist flights in summer to the Mediterranean.

If you want to sell more than 500 Units you need the Asian market, so an aircraft you can cramp and even a bit freight capability on top.

Also the LCC market will grow even more in the next few years and there it is important to have more seats and less aisle. So 7W double aisle will never be sold to any LCC and this are the carriers buying the most aircraft.


Because you keep thinking it's Circular - Ovalish is not that much of a penalty and you can't take SA 6W much past A321 in length for boarding/deplaning and moving around the cabin issues.

With Carbon you may be able to get this for "free" meaning not much of a weight penalty as the Skin thickness requirements to deal with things like Ramp strikes are more than is needed for structural reasons - that excess margin can be put to good use.

Oh - and none of the rumors in the media are NMA as 8W it's always been 7W.

For really low cost/efficiency because of the strength of Carbon and the ability to build really long tubes efficiently from a weight standpoint - 5W might actually be the right answer.

A 5W A225/A227 would give any new 6W fits.

5W for up to 180 ish seats (or 200 Seats Y- Sardine LCC class) and LCC, 7W NSA for Mainline and possibly an NSA - XL that could seat up to say 300 seats in Y that would have fantastic CASM and be great for LCC's.


Look from a 6W to a 7W you need to add at least 90cms in width. The problem is you only add 40cms that are revenue generating. So 50% of the weight you add to the frame over a 6W (and a 7W will be havier than a 6W if both are of the same generation and technology) is non revenue generating. If we take the numbers From Fred:

So if the Fuselage of a 6W (753) is 10.7t and that of a 7W (762) is 14.5t you increase weight by 3.8t or by 35.5% but you only add 16.7% of seats (6 to 7). So 7W at the same capacity as 6W is at a massive disadvantage in weight. This would be the same today if both models 752 and 753 would be build with the newest tech. This does not include the weight of the wings.

But we build it oval, you can not compare that?

I say you can because the material you save in the reduced height will be used to reinforce the structure because of the focused stresses. Everything that deviates from the perfect shape (slightly oval elongated in the vertical axis due to gravity and lift, in space a perfect circle would be the best) need reinforcement which adds additional weight.

william wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I still wonder why people think 7W is in any way a good idea. In Economy class for the current trend of lowest fares possible you need a high seat vs aisle rate. That is why the 777 is in 3-4-3 and not 3-3-3 and so on. 7W has the worst ratio possible and I can not see which airlines would invest into a frame like this especially if it is so "tight" that you can not go 2-4-2 even in Asia. Building an aircraft like this means limiting yourself to a really small market (USA, and maybe domestic Australia). I can see no other region to buy an aircraft like this. Toss the odd African and central Asian carrier into this and that is it.

A market like China or India needs a bigger jump in capacity from a 6W up. In Europe you do not need a 7W for any routes (not to Asia, Africa, South America and to NA it will be done by the US carriers). Intra European is all about frequency not mass except some tourist flights in summer to the Mediterranean.

If you want to sell more than 500 Units you need the Asian market, so an aircraft you can cramp and even a bit freight capability on top.

Also the LCC market will grow even more in the next few years and there it is important to have more seats and less aisle. So 7W double aisle will never be sold to any LCC and this are the carriers buying the most aircraft.


If what you state is true about the Asian market there is already a plane for that, the A330 Regional.


Oh: Look who has one of the biggest A339 orders...
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:33 pm

FluidFlow wrote:

Look from a 6W to a 7W you need to add at least 90cms in width. The problem is you only add 40cms that are revenue generating. So 50% of the weight you add to the frame over a 6W (and a 7W will be havier than a 6W if both are of the same generation and technology) is non revenue generating. If we take the numbers From Fred:

So if the Fuselage of a 6W (753) is 10.7t and that of a 7W (762) is 14.5t you increase weight by 3.8t or by 35.5% but you only add 16.7% of seats (6 to 7). So 7W at the same capacity as 6W is at a massive disadvantage in weight. This would be the same today if both models 752 and 753 would be build with the newest tech. This does not include the weight of the wings.


The 767 Cabin has 4.7% more area (60.15 vs 152.96) for that given weight (it is shorter) and additional payload capability of ~2t
35.5% more weight for 4.7% more cabin area or 33.9% per unit area is not great for keeping things light.

Imagine if we could calculate why this had increased by comparing the two widths and dominating stresses on a pressure vessel and seeing that the 767 is 33.7% wider than the 757......

I'm not saying Boeing cant use CFRP to make a new funky shape but I have not seen evidence to see that there has been a shift in tech to allow it to make these things not make sense and then to the same token why would that not be of use for a narrow body.

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:44 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I still wonder why people think 7W is in any way a good idea. In Economy class for the current trend of lowest fares possible you need a high seat vs aisle rate. That is why the 777 is in 3-4-3 and not 3-3-3 and so on. 7W has the worst ratio possible and I can not see which airlines would invest into a frame like this especially if it is so "tight" that you can not go 2-4-2 even in Asia. Building an aircraft like this means limiting yourself to a really small market (USA, and maybe domestic Australia). I can see no other region to buy an aircraft like this. Toss the odd African and central Asian carrier into this and that is it.

A market like China or India needs a bigger jump in capacity from a 6W up. In Europe you do not need a 7W for any routes (not to Asia, Africa, South America and to NA it will be done by the US carriers). Intra European is all about frequency not mass except some tourist flights in summer to the Mediterranean.

If you want to sell more than 500 Units you need the Asian market, so an aircraft you can cramp and even a bit freight capability on top.

Also the LCC market will grow even more in the next few years and there it is important to have more seats and less aisle. So 7W double aisle will never be sold to any LCC and this are the carriers buying the most aircraft.


Because you keep thinking it's Circular - Ovalish is not that much of a penalty and you can't take SA 6W much past A321 in length for boarding/deplaning and moving around the cabin issues.

With Carbon you may be able to get this for "free" meaning not much of a weight penalty as the Skin thickness requirements to deal with things like Ramp strikes are more than is needed for structural reasons - that excess margin can be put to good use.

Oh - and none of the rumors in the media are NMA as 8W it's always been 7W.

For really low cost/efficiency because of the strength of Carbon and the ability to build really long tubes efficiently from a weight standpoint - 5W might actually be the right answer.

A 5W A225/A227 would give any new 6W fits.

5W for up to 180 ish seats (or 200 Seats Y- Sardine LCC class) and LCC, 7W NSA for Mainline and possibly an NSA - XL that could seat up to say 300 seats in Y that would have fantastic CASM and be great for LCC's.


Look from a 6W to a 7W you need to add at least 90cms in width. The problem is you only add 40cms that are revenue generating. So 50% of the weight you add to the frame over a 6W (and a 7W will be havier than a 6W if both are of the same generation and technology) is non revenue generating. If we take the numbers From Fred:

So if the Fuselage of a 6W (753) is 10.7t and that of a 7W (762) is 14.5t you increase weight by 3.8t or by 35.5% but you only add 16.7% of seats (6 to 7). So 7W at the same capacity as 6W is at a massive disadvantage in weight. This would be the same today if both models 752 and 753 would be build with the newest tech. This does not include the weight of the wings.

But we build it oval, you can not compare that?

I say you can because the material you save in the reduced height will be used to reinforce the structure because of the focused stresses. Everything that deviates from the perfect shape (slightly oval elongated in the vertical axis due to gravity and lift, in space a perfect circle would be the best) need reinforcement which adds additional weight.

william wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I still wonder why people think 7W is in any way a good idea. In Economy class for the current trend of lowest fares possible you need a high seat vs aisle rate. That is why the 777 is in 3-4-3 and not 3-3-3 and so on. 7W has the worst ratio possible and I can not see which airlines would invest into a frame like this especially if it is so "tight" that you can not go 2-4-2 even in Asia. Building an aircraft like this means limiting yourself to a really small market (USA, and maybe domestic Australia). I can see no other region to buy an aircraft like this. Toss the odd African and central Asian carrier into this and that is it.

A market like China or India needs a bigger jump in capacity from a 6W up. In Europe you do not need a 7W for any routes (not to Asia, Africa, South America and to NA it will be done by the US carriers). Intra European is all about frequency not mass except some tourist flights in summer to the Mediterranean.

If you want to sell more than 500 Units you need the Asian market, so an aircraft you can cramp and even a bit freight capability on top.

Also the LCC market will grow even more in the next few years and there it is important to have more seats and less aisle. So 7W double aisle will never be sold to any LCC and this are the carriers buying the most aircraft.


If what you state is true about the Asian market there is already a plane for that, the A330 Regional.


Oh: Look who has one of the biggest A339 orders...


But you can't take that Delta on frame weight difference as we all know NMA is rumored to be lot less deep in the belly. Plus all that extra width leads to a container that has 50% more Capacity.

You have to think of as more of 757 with the sides pushed out 18-20" on each side - it will not gain as much as the 767 does over the 757.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:57 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I still wonder why people think 7W is in any way a good idea. In Economy class for the current trend of lowest fares possible you need a high seat vs aisle rate. That is why the 777 is in 3-4-3 and not 3-3-3 and so on. 7W has the worst ratio possible and I can not see which airlines would invest into a frame like this especially if it is so "tight" that you can not go 2-4-2 even in Asia. Building an aircraft like this means limiting yourself to a really small market (USA, and maybe domestic Australia). I can see no other region to buy an aircraft like this. Toss the odd African and central Asian carrier into this and that is it.

A market like China or India needs a bigger jump in capacity from a 6W up. In Europe you do not need a 7W for any routes (not to Asia, Africa, South America and to NA it will be done by the US carriers). Intra European is all about frequency not mass except some tourist flights in summer to the Mediterranean.

If you want to sell more than 500 Units you need the Asian market, so an aircraft you can cramp and even a bit freight capability on top.

Also the LCC market will grow even more in the next few years and there it is important to have more seats and less aisle. So 7W double aisle will never be sold to any LCC and this are the carriers buying the most aircraft.


Because you keep thinking it's Circular - Ovalish is not that much of a penalty and you can't take SA 6W much past A321 in length for boarding/deplaning and moving around the cabin issues.

With Carbon you may be able to get this for "free" meaning not much of a weight penalty as the Skin thickness requirements to deal with things like Ramp strikes are more than is needed for structural reasons - that excess margin can be put to good use.

Oh - and none of the rumors in the media are NMA as 8W it's always been 7W.

For really low cost/efficiency because of the strength of Carbon and the ability to build really long tubes efficiently from a weight standpoint - 5W might actually be the right answer.

A 5W A225/A227 would give any new 6W fits.

5W for up to 180 ish seats (or 200 Seats Y- Sardine LCC class) and LCC, 7W NSA for Mainline and possibly an NSA - XL that could seat up to say 300 seats in Y that would have fantastic CASM and be great for LCC's.


Look from a 6W to a 7W you need to add at least 90cms in width. The problem is you only add 40cms that are revenue generating. So 50% of the weight you add to the frame over a 6W (and a 7W will be havier than a 6W if both are of the same generation and technology) is non revenue generating. If we take the numbers From Fred:

So if the Fuselage of a 6W (753) is 10.7t and that of a 7W (762) is 14.5t you increase weight by 3.8t or by 35.5% but you only add 16.7% of seats (6 to 7). So 7W at the same capacity as 6W is at a massive disadvantage in weight. This would be the same today if both models 752 and 753 would be build with the newest tech. This does not include the weight of the wings.

But we build it oval, you can not compare that?

I say you can because the material you save in the reduced height will be used to reinforce the structure because of the focused stresses. Everything that deviates from the perfect shape (slightly oval elongated in the vertical axis due to gravity and lift, in space a perfect circle would be the best) need reinforcement which adds additional weight.

william wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I still wonder why people think 7W is in any way a good idea. In Economy class for the current trend of lowest fares possible you need a high seat vs aisle rate. That is why the 777 is in 3-4-3 and not 3-3-3 and so on. 7W has the worst ratio possible and I can not see which airlines would invest into a frame like this especially if it is so "tight" that you can not go 2-4-2 even in Asia. Building an aircraft like this means limiting yourself to a really small market (USA, and maybe domestic Australia). I can see no other region to buy an aircraft like this. Toss the odd African and central Asian carrier into this and that is it.

A market like China or India needs a bigger jump in capacity from a 6W up. In Europe you do not need a 7W for any routes (not to Asia, Africa, South America and to NA it will be done by the US carriers). Intra European is all about frequency not mass except some tourist flights in summer to the Mediterranean.

If you want to sell more than 500 Units you need the Asian market, so an aircraft you can cramp and even a bit freight capability on top.

Also the LCC market will grow even more in the next few years and there it is important to have more seats and less aisle. So 7W double aisle will never be sold to any LCC and this are the carriers buying the most aircraft.


If what you state is true about the Asian market there is already a plane for that, the A330 Regional.


Oh: Look who has one of the biggest A339 orders...



And how many orders is that in this hot selling Asian market? 40?
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:04 pm

morrisond wrote:
Sjtstudios wrote:
Is anyone else actually questioning wether the FSA would be poorly timed for a pre-2030 launch date? If NMA is scraped, Boeing is either forced into FSA immediately or has to cut engineering headcount for the next 5-10 years and wait. Could this be premature from a product design and market feasibility standpoint?

With the Max having nearly 5,000 units in backlog and honestly more demand in the outlook, Boeing would basically be scrapping the program after 10 years. If Airlines do not want to retrain pilots in the next 10 years, due to young ages of recently manufactured 737NG and A320ceo, Boeing basically concedes the rest of this narrow body replacement cycle to Airbus. When would the next one occur?

And what would a ~2027 EIS design achieve from an optimization standpoint? Composites? Any significant engine breakthrough from LEAP? I feel like Boeing wouldn’t achieve any significant market advantage in price or operational costs. Lastly, with the duopoly, what market advantage could Boeing hope to gain over Airbus from a supply standpoint.

It truly seems to me like the NMA serves a business model development purpose. Production system design, supply chain optimization, economies of scale, could it all be something that needs more maturity before a FSA? Obviously the product needs to sell, but maybe the NMA’s spot in the MoM is necessary to support the FSA’s spot in Boeing’s product range. Perhaps sliding a FSA down into a design envelope that efficiently covers 120-200 instead of the 180-240 like the A320-A321 range.


If it's 120-200 (ok let's call it 180) the most efficient cross section would probably be 5W. No one has said Future single aisle means 6W. This would cover A221-738/A320 in size.

This would make sense with Boeing Brazil focusing on this leaving Big Boeing to focus on 7W NMA which eventually morfs into 7W NSA after 2030 when engines are available and the Capacity is needed at slot constrained airports.

Smallest NSA would start at 200 Y seats ranging up to largest NMA at 300 Y seats.


Everyone singing the praises of a stretched A220, it would make sense for new Boeing NB to be a 5W aircraft. My question is how long would such an aircraft be to cover the A321 capacity, that would be one long aircraft.

Would not surprise me if WB and NB projects were in the planning stages concurrently and priority has shifted from the WB project to the NB one.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:43 pm

scbriml wrote:
It appears that Boeing has "secretly" been steering customers who've over-ordered MAX (especially lessors) towards its replacement - FSA.

https://leehamnews.com/2019/11/28/conve ... to-the-fsa
As Boeing works its way through the 737 MAX crisis, all consideration whether to launch the New Midmarket Aircraft (NMA) is on hold.

But the Boeing sales force has been testing the market with a single-aisle concept, the Future Small Airplane (FSA) to replace the MAX.

This highly confidential effort has been underway for months. Some lessors have been approached to swap some MAX orders for the FSA—there was a supply-demand imbalance for lessor-ordered MAXes even before the grounding—and airlines across the globe have been approached to gauge interest.


It will surprise nobody (except maybe one person here) that FSA is a single-aisle plane.


1. If Boeing is pushing delivery dates further into the future then we are talking about a 2027-28 debut.

2. Airbus A320 6107,Boeing 737 4406 backlogs, neither company will be interested in a sooner debut. Both companies will want to turn those backlogs into deliveries and cash. At present production rates, it will take the same amount of time to go through the backlogs.

3. The chess game will be entertaining to watch. Boeing would be replacing a family of aircraft (really two, the EMB and 737). Airbus will no doubt update the A220 with a stretch but what do you do about the cash cow A321? Maybe Airbus does not counter with a A220 stretch as Anet thinks but with their A320 CF wing spar that reduces weight, will it be enough?

4.Not expecting any announcement no matter what the rumors state till next summer.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos